Comment by ldambra | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ldambra | Hacker News Reader

Is this guy supposed to be educated ? I was raised in France and I feel less alienated than the author of this article. He sounds like Moses coming down from his hill with the tables of laws.

United States are the epicenter of the economical world without any doubt, the ultimate place for entrepreneurs for sure, "the place where it happens", but history teaches us at least 3 things :

1/ Portugal was this place before (hello America), Spain was before (gold from America), Holland was before (beginning of world commerce, main Harbor of the world), England was before (industrial revolution), etc.

So today it is the turn of the United States to hold this place, but tommorow it might be China (who knows) and I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy).

2/ France has never been the epicenter of the economical world in it's history, it has never been the #1 power in the world, never. And with our strategic geographical position in Europe it's pretty ironic. It's not that we didn't try, but the reasons are cultural, and they take their roots far beyond socialism.

3/ You can't have it all. The reasons why France is #1 tourism destination in the world are also the reasons why we weren't the #1 power at any time in our history.

France is undergoing a serious cultural crisis right now, and economy is certainly not our strongest skill, but a lot of our problems come from deliberate choices of lifestyle. You cannot have it all. It should not be so hard to understand that there are different kind of lifestyles that all come with their pro and cons. Especially for a traveled reporter.

I think your assertion that "you can't have it all" is telling. We are raised in the US being told that we can indeed have it all, if we work hard enough.

I'm not arguing that this is reality, I'm just saying our attitude is such that anything is achievable. Maybe that makes us naive, but it also makes us much more likely to take a big risk for a big payoff.

I confess I don't know France well enough to add to your views on it's economic attitudes, but I do know the US well enough to say what I just said. I think the point of the article is that since we are not taught to fear capitalism, we are more likely to do stupid things that sometimes actually pay off, and the pay off is generally worth it for society, if not for the individuals that failed en route.

And I think France was the #1 power in the world briefly... the Napoleonic Era. Either way, it has been one of the top powers for quite a while. I, as an American, am still envious of your prowess in Nuclear Energy.

> "I think your assertion that "you can't have it all" is telling. We are raised in the US being told that we can indeed have it all, if we work hard enough."

But unfortunatly, not everyone can have it all. That attitude may lead to more risk taking, but it will also be a constant source of unhappiness.

60 minutes had a story about Denmark, which is the happiest country in the world. Their secret is to try to get it all, but also know that you might have to settle for less.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833...

Video is here: http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/140/happiness

The best advice I'd have to anyone wanting to begin a start-up here is that the RISK always has to be GREATER than the REWARD for there to be a PROFIT. RISK > REWARD = PROFIT. It's that simple.

I find the saying "you can have it all" to be idealistic bullshit that dooms an economy and its people to failure and exploitation. It merely justifies the reason not to have a welfare system because it is your own damn fault if you take a leap against common sense that is never able to pay off.

Example: 50 years ago AT&T invented the picturephone AKA video phones. The reason it took almost 40 years for it to even become marketable was because it wasn't worth the risk for people. There wasn't enough reward to justify the risk of changing, so no one did.

Simply put it gave 10 frames per second of picture, gave no benefit over voice and cost a fortune. $20 vs $1200 for a handset, it was a retarded product and took 50 years to even get uptake and by that time it was on broadband phones and the housephone market is already beat by VoIP and Webcams.

Would a start-up have survived 50 years with no selling product?

>That attitude may lead to more risk taking, but it will also be a constant source of unhappiness.

Not necessarily. It may be a source of unhappiness, but it may just be a calibration effect. Consider the question, "on a scale of 1-10, how happy are you?" I know 1 == sad (not me) and I know 10=="a marijuana forest full of strippers?!?". But what does 5 or 8 mean?

Say I'm the sort of person who might rate myself a 9. But If there is a person, real or hypothetical, who is "happier" than me (1), but not quite a 10. So that leads me to conclude HE must be 9 and I must be 8. But I'm not less happy, I just don't know how to answer a "how happy are you" question.

Similarly, I might want to rate myself a 5, but then I think about how I wasn't eaten by velociraptors, and jack myself up to 7 (my understanding is that something of this nature occurs in Denmark).

(1) His beer comes from further away than my beer and his wife's ass is higher up than my wife's ass.

While people raised in the US are being told they can have it all, if they work hard enough, reality isn't so. Social mobility in the US is lower than in most European countries. The correlation between your income and that of your parents is greater in the US than in Europe. Even the Economist, the free-market crusader, admits this. And that's of course a fairly predictable outcome of the US approach to education and health care.

The reasons why France is #1 tourism destination in the world are also the reasons why we weren't the #1 power at any time in our history.

Your whole comment strikes me as incoherent. France came very close to being the major world power, if it wasn't, several times. It's power was limited by having a relatively small population, not by wine or architecture or art galleries, which are the reasons it is a tourist destination.

I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy)

Huh?

He sounds like Moses coming down from his hill with the tables of laws.

Err, no. He sounds like he's describing instances of school curricula which are neo-Marxist. Credible criticism, as far as I can tell.

Portugal...Spain...Holland...England

Yes, so? Each one in turn was full of people taking ventures rather than welfare checks. Do you think Columbus read about how he should organize a conference for lazy bitches to appeal to the Queen for handouts? That's evidentally what European kids are actually being taught.

You seem to be implying that the welfare state is a lifestyle choice, but France's culture didn't grow up in a welfare state.

Please, quote properly. Don't hack sentences in half without even an elipsis to denote that you're altering the context.

> So today it is the turn of the United States to hold this place [#1 economic power], but tommorow it might be China (who knows) and [you see that AND it means CARRYING ON] I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle [They have state controlled communist media, that was a blatent fault on your part not the authors] (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy)[< those braketed comments, they're the writers side remarks, saying simply communism = bad].

Now that that is out the way; no France was never the worlds #1 economic power in the world. It's a country that has been habitually invaded repeatedly and its only point of success in the Napoleon Era crippled its economy through conscription and a complete halt in technological advances.

> Err, no. He sounds like he's describing instances of school curricula which are neo-Marxist. Credible criticism, as far as I can tell.

You obviously agree with the articles author, but its patently poor writing. It's barely above tabloid journalism and merely written to inflame. It's poor, it's biased and it's written like utter capitalist garbage and not credible criticism. Simply put: It's the same shit I've heard for years about socialism, the only thing is that Europe is a bigger faster growing economy than the US. Uhh that means socialism WINS and capitalism LOSES, the market is the ultimate truth and that is capitalist doctrine #1.

EU 3% growth, US 2.2% growth. EU $16.37 trillion GDP(OER), US $13.79 trillion GDP(OER) US inflation is also .9% higher, which means the US GDP(OER) is going to get worse every year.

The US currently beats the EU on poverty line by about 3%, however the EU keeps bringing in countries with unemployment and poverty lines well above acceptable levels, and hey go figure the EU is still growing better than the US.

I'm sorry, but all 'evidence' of a benefit to capitalism is bull. It's already been proven that people in the US spend on average twice as much on health care as people in the UK(with the worlds largest nationalised health survice) and the poor in the UK are as healthy as the US' rich. That means there's a proportionally larger, healthier and more productive work force in the UK than the US.

So EU has the #1 economy in the world, it has several of the best health care systems in the world (competing for #1 between UK and Germany really) that are slowly spreading throughout Europe... and the US has what now? The #1 country for citizens behind bars?

I'm sorry, but all 'evidence' of a benefit to capitalism is bull

My standard response to this:

South Korea vs. North Korea

Taiwan or Hong Kong vs. Red China

Modern China vs. Red China

West Germany vs. East Germany

USA vs USSR

Socialism has failed over and over, and I'm not going to argue the point.

Please, quote properly.

Uh huh. And then you quote yourself by adding in text that wasn't there before. Good job.

Good job to you too; annotating isn't adding, it's annotating. It serves a purpose, obviously you never learnt that in school. Ha, maybe you should have gone into a school system where the government provides free quality education? You know, socialist.

Also where did faschist Stalinist-Communism come into this, we're talking about !!EUROPE!! here. Why not bring in Hitler to make your arguing skills completely inept.

Besides the fact you blatently know nothing about socialism, namely that the Anarcho-Communism movement in the Spanish Revolution led to 50-100% increases in worker efficiencies, before they got killed off and supressed. Similar happened during the Hungarian Revolution, both extremely successful but never powerful enough to survive military force. Also, it's nice that you miss out Cuba from your list, and make 'Modern China' sound like it's still not a Communist dictatorship, and BTW not Stalinist.

Now, back onto the subject of Europe. Nevermind that Europe, by your opinion, is going 'socialist' and apparently succeeding by beating the US economy. The fact that universal health care by US education seems to be 'socialist' and is in every WESTERN country except the US.

Every country in the west is a mixed economy, mixing nationalism and capitalism. Europe has done this to the best degree and is succeeding by it, the US has done it the least (yes you're part RED) and is suffering because of it.

I find your ignorance to social policy humourus. Capitalism is bull because the US doesn't practice it even though it waves the flag for it like crazy. I mean the US is basically like any European country, just piss poor at coughing up the cash.

I mean how far is banning drugs from banning certain hair cuts like in North Korea? It's on the same scale and 'banning' things isn't actually capitalist. I mean, the Netherlands by definition is more capitalist than the US because they're legalising drugs and prostitution.

Capitalism = ultimate left. Communism = ultimate right. Mixed = 50/50. No country is capitalist anymore because it doesn't work, it's a fantasy but communism does exist in its entirity and Cuba is an example of that, China too. The only part of China that you described as 'modern' China is Hong Kong, which is because it has British Laws that are mixed economy, and the only industries that have remained non-nationalised in China exist in Hong Kong because the government doesn't have its power to nationalise at will there.

I mean how far is banning drugs from banning certain hair cuts like in North Korea?

LOL

* I mean, the Netherlands by definition is more capitalist than the US because they're legalising drugs and prostitution.*

LOL

Capitalism = ultimate left.

LOL

Communism = ultimate right.

LOL

but communism does exist in its entirity and Cuba is an example of that, China too

LOL

Troll on, brother.

Out of curiosity: Have the people downmodding me here actually read the howlers that I quoted?

I think your left and right and up and down are a little mixed up... look into a scale like this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Great writing skills, Electro, and of course you've got it exactly right.

As an American who has lived in Europe for well over a decade, it shocks me now to see how sacred the word Capitalism is to Americans. To say anything negative about it, or anything positive about Socialism, is blasphemy and apostasy. I know there's a rich history behind why this is, but it still surprises me -- no shocks me -- that otherwise intelligent individuals will lose their minds over such issues, much like religious fanatics. This article above is a good example, and reads like a fundamentalist tract. Unfortunately, I feel America has become a failed experiment of what happens when Capitalism is not tempered enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com